Scream 4

Well, well, well…Scream 4, huh?  Or is it SCRE4M?  Anyway…I never thought it would happen.  As ridiculous as the original trilogy was (and when I say ridiculous, I’m referring to parts 2 and 3), I thought it went full circle and concluded as a three-part tale back when Scream 3 finished it in 2000.

However, when it was first talked about, publicly, that another sequel (actually, another trilogy) was in the works, I was skeptical and didn’t think much of it.  I thought that’s all it was—talk.  But when it was announced that some of the original cast members were signed on for it, including Wes Craven, it pricked up my ears.  When a release date was announced, I paid full attention.  Finally, when trailers started popping up, I became very interested.

With some of the original cast coming back—the ones whose characters were still alive and not killed off (there was a rumor that Jamie Kennedy's character of Randy was going to make a cameo)—I figured the magic would appear and the cast would come back to their characters like slipping into a comfortable pair of sneakers.  And that’s what gave the original movie, in 1996, the magic it had: the cast.  Neve Campbell, Rose McGowan, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Jamie Kennedy, Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, and many more, all had great chemistry together.

But, of course, with my optimism came my skepticism.

Suddenly, the cast announcements kept coming, stating that a lot of newcomers were joining the troupe—newcomers to the franchise, but well known faces in other teeny bopper flicks, making me think that this new Scream movie was turning into a Twilight-esque nightmare.  Even more cringing, was the thought that the only reason Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox were coming back was just to be killed off to make room for all these newbies.
All that aside, the weekend finally showed up and Scream 4 arrived at my local theater.  I waited a few days, of course—since there are always idiots who show up opening day to ruin the movie with incessant talking and remarks—until Sunday and took a drive to watch the flick.

Without giving too much away (and definitely no spoilers here), the opening movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie gimmick seemed like a bad omen on what was to come.  But I remained optimistic and watched, nevertheless.

Now, the story itself seemed good.  As they showcased in the trailers, there are updated rules—not really new ones, but changed a bit.  But these rules were stated by the new faces of the cast, not the originals.  Also, I really liked the message about how Hollywood is just regurgitating stories with remakes and reboots constantly.  Overall, you’re kept in your seat, waiting, to find out who the killer is.  But that’s about it.

What’s bad about this movie is the size of the “new” cast, because it was a little too much.  It wasn’t that you couldn’t keep track of all of them, but there were just too many.  Maybe it was a way to keep everybody guessing who the killer was.  Maybe it was a message about how off-putting it is to see new faces in a rebooted franchise.  Because it seemed like they did it deliberately: Sidney’s cousin (Sidney), the suspicious-looking boyfriend (Billy), the talkative friend (Tatum), the film geeks (Randy), a couple of inapt deputies (Dewey), and so on.  I don’t know if it was a bad thing or a good thing, or if it was a message from Wes Craven—especially since he had one of his previous masterpieces terribly remade last year (A Nightmare on Elm Street), but it was there.

I’ll just end this with saying that, like most other reviewers, the last ten to fifteen minutes of the film are the most critical and satisfying to watch.  But that’s not saying much.  The reveal is a little predictable, but the motives for the killer are ridiculous.  After watching My Soul to Take a while back, I was hoping that Craven would’ve made up for it with Scream 4.  He did…a little…but not much.

My final “bit” on Scream 4?  I’d wait for it to come out on DVD/Blu-Ray to rent it.  A die hard Scream fan, like me, may buy it to add to their movie collection, but I’m a completist and I can’t help it.  One other thing…I’m surprised as hell that they didn’t release this in 3-D.  With the latest craze (that’s sure to die down, leaving everybody with expensive TVs and glasses that’ll end up in the Beta, 8-track, laser disc and HD DVD wayside), I’m shocked that the studio didn’t insist on it.  But, maybe the Weinsteins are realizing that you need to put story ahead of visual gimmicks and know that there are quite a few film fans who are smarter than wanting to sit down and watch crap like Avatar.  I'm sure Craven and the studio learned their lesson with My Soul to Take.

I Spit on Your Grave

A little over thirty years ago in 1978, a little known movie, I Spit on Your Grave, was made and received cult status over the years as a feminist revenge movie. Growing up, as I started loving horror movies, I had always seen this film in the shelves of local video rental shops. I never bothered renting it, not because I had no intention, but because I simply overlooked it.

Five or six years ago, I finally placed it in my Netflix queue and moved it to the top to have it shipped to me a few days later.

I popped it in and watched it…horrified.

Firstly, the movie played out like some old pornography show, especially seeing how the actors spoke and the way they dressed gave it that air. But seeing that this was a 70s movie, I understood.

I’ll explain the movie like Roger Ebert put it: a writer rents a cabin so that she can write her new novel in peace, but as she’s sunbathing one day, four local men take her away to rape and beat her multiple times. She’s left alone at her cabin afterwards to recuperate and goes back to the men to take her revenge.

Watching that old film was tough, I couldn’t believe some of the things that went on and how stupid some of the things played out, like how she brought one of the men back to the cabin to seduce him. Did he really think she was into him after he beat ad raped her days before? Better yet, how could she bring herself to seduce him?

Yet, it was the 1970s and only a few years before, Wes Craven directed the catchy-titled The Last House on the Left, which had a similar theme as I Spit on Your Grave. So plot holes such as those would go unnoticed.

When I heard that I Spit on Your Grave was being remade, I couldn’t help but remember the 1978 version I had watched a few years prior, thinking that it wouldn’t work. But then I got to thinking that if they would rewrite it intelligently, making it more realistic and modern, then maybe it can work and be something worth watching.

I actually entered the date on my calendar for when it was to be released in theaters, but it was a limited release and didn’t show up anywhere near my city. It’s probably a good thing anyway, because I think this movie would’ve been uncomfortable to watch in public, especially since I usually travel to the theaters alone (my wife does not enjoy the movies I like to watch). I remembered squirming during quite a few scenes of The Devil’s Rejects, even as a few women left the theater because of those scenes.

So when I Spit on Your Grave was released on DVD, I entered it into my Netflix queue, scooted it up to the top and awaited the delivery shortly after, which happened to be this past weekend.

Now, it was still an uncomfortable film to watch, especially having to pause the movie every time my wife walked into the room; but if the remake was anything like the original, I knew there’d be a point to all of it.

In this one, we have a young woman, Jennifer (played by Sarah Butler), who’s an author working on her next novel. She’s a beautiful girl, looking in her twenties, and she’s traveling alone to a cabin in the woods. Jennifer receives the keys from the caretaker, as well as directions via his scribbled map, and heads off to the cabin. She stops for gas and is greeted by the creepy stares of a couple of guys (one playing a harmonica) just sitting behind the station and creepily staring at Jennifer. The station attendant, Johnny (played by Jeff Branson), appears and Jennifer asks him for directions to the road leading to the cabin. He asks if she’s staying at the well-known cabin and Jennifer unwisely says that she is. After she leaves, Johnny’s upset that the “city girl” didn’t accept his advances. Later on, Johnny and his friends decide to pay Jennifer a visit.

The remake pretty much plays on like the original and it’s no secret what happens in the beginning and at the end. However, the script here is smarter and doesn’t include unrealistic plots or subplots. Everything you see is frightfully believable and makes you cringe. The new film adds a new element to the story which makes it a bit more frightening, if you can believe that, because the original, I’m sure, will make any woman cringe and any man want to jump through the screen to kill these guys.

Of course, as you’re watching Jennifer get her revenge, you kind of set aside the wonderment of how she was able to plan all this out and how she was able to execute each revenge without a hitch. You’re just involved in it and silently cheering for her that you forget about that. But we do get a bit of foreshadowing of each plan. For example, we see the camera pan through the shed and pause at the container of lye.

As unpleasant a subject matter this movie is, I thoroughly liked it and would definitely see this again. Even though you have to sit through the cruel humiliating scenes Jennifer goes through, as well as the beating and raping she receives, it’s needed in this film to warrant the revenge in the third act.

A nice piece of trivia: one of Johnny’s creepy friends, Andy, is played by Rodney Eastman. Rodney is known for playing Joey, the teenager who doesn’t speak until the end, in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3.

My final “bit” on I Spit on Your Grave? Aside from it seeming like an exploitive movie, I think it was a disturbing movie that may serve some purpose. For one, a twenty-five year-old woman (or man, for that matter) should not travel to some remote cabin by herself. Like I said, the rape scenes were a bit much and will make the average audience feel very uncomfortable, but the plotted out revenge will make anyone cheer after seeing what our heroine went through. Bottom line, however, is that this woman will not live happily ever after because she went through some shit that will fuck up her life for good. It’s definitely re-watchable and I’d say add this to your movie collection. Just watch it alone...for it's not a movie you can watch with a bunch of your friends.

The Fourth Kind

Before you go on and read the rest of this review on The Fourth Kind, just a warning that there are going to be spoilers within.

Okay, with that out of the way, I’ll get into The Fourth Kind and let you know how I felt about it.

Going into this film, I had no knowledge of what was it about besides what I had seen in TV spots and trailers. It looked pretty good and I’ve always enjoyed Milla Jovovich in every part I’ve seen her play. But what really hooked me was the part in the trailer where she’s looking right into the camera and says that she’s playing the part of the main character, talking about how real footage will be added to the film and that some of it may be upsetting. I also had gotten the idea that it was about alien abduction, as they go through what each “kind” means. First is sighting, second is evidence, third is contact and the fourth is abduction. Without a doubt, I had to see this movie.

So, as usual, I didn’t go onto the Internet to find out any facts about the validity of the film and just went in with the facts presented to me by Milla herself. I went straight to the movie theater and this movie scared the crap out of me. Now, I usually have a high tolerance for horror films and rarely get scared this much. The reason for my fright was that the video footage they showed throughout the film was upsetting.

With all that said, let me get into the film.

After the preamble by Milla Jovovich, the film starts off with a video of a Dr. Abigail Tyler as she’s being interviewed and analyzed by a colleague of hers. As it goes on, the screen splits with Jovovich and Elias Koteas acting the interview out word for word. At one point, the screen is fully on the actors and they go on with the scene. Very often throughout this film, the direction resorts to this structure as they incorporate the video footage alongside the acted out scenes side by side on a split screen. At first this had gotten on my nerves, but then I relished the scenes and really wanted to see the video footage. As the scene goes on, we see that Tyler is under hypnosis and we see a flashback of her husband as he’s murdered in their bed; but we never see who’s stabbing him.

The movie goes on and we see that Milla Jovovich, playing the part of Dr Abigail Tyler, is a psychologist with a number of patients she sees in the small Alaskan town of Nome. The surrounding nature of the town makes it impossible to drive into from afar and aircraft is needed to enter the little city, which gives you an idea of the isolation one must feel while living there.

We get a small montage of Dr. Tyler interviewing her patients and they seem to have trouble sleeping, always seeing an owl at their window. The filmmakers show the representation of this owl at times and I must admit—it is freaky-looking.

As the sessions go on with her patients, Dr. Tyler asks one of them if they’d like to be hypnotized to see what they can remember. One of them—Tommy—agrees and they go forward with the hypnosis.

Again, the film shows both the acted out film alongside the video footage and it gets to you. Tommy starts remembering something about the owl and how it got into his house. Both the man in the film and the man in the video scream out and appear frightened as they back up onto the couch, falling off and breaking a side table in the process. Tommy wakes up and seems calm and serene, telling Dr. Tyler he’d like to talk about it at their next session. She agrees and he leaves. But later, there’s a police dispatch that informs the authorities that there’s a domestic violence call at Tommy’s house. When they get there, Tommy tells the cops over the phone that he wants to speak to Dr. Tyler. Again, we have video footage from the police cruiser that captured the scene on video, showing Tommy in his house and holding his wife and kids hostage. When Tyler gets there, Tommy yells out to her about some gibberish language and what he remembered (which is still confusing), then shoots his wife and children before shooting himself dead.

Seeing all this is exciting but leaves you wanting to know just what the hell is going on and what memory would make this guy want to commit murder-suicide. Of course, the sheriff, played by Will Patton, interrogates Tyler, wanting to know what drove this guy to do what he did after his last contact was her.

As the film goes on, we have a few other hypnosis sessions, one with another patient of Tyler’s that results in him being paralyzed and the other with Tyler herself after she discovers an audio recording of her abduction.

Another element of this film included the director of the film interviewing the real Abigail Tyler, looking sickly and haunted.

The film as a whole was very interesting and intriguing, with a few shocks and frights thrown in to get your blood pumping. It was even sad when, at the end, the final interview with Tyler showed how sad and defeated she was.

All through this movie I kept telling myself, I’ve got to look this up online to see if those video footages were real. Well, what I found was more (or less) than what I had bargained for. Turns out, everything was fake. The video footage was fake, the audio footage was fake, the recorded sessions and police recordings were staged…there’s not even a real Dr. Abigail Tyler.

So after seeing Milla Jovovich tell me at the beginning of this film that it’s based on a true story with the actual video footage, I found out she lied to me. All the people that I saw in this film, whom I began caring about and was sad for, were fictional.

But you know what? My anger turned to gratification for the fact that I thought it was real, because that’s what made this film frightening and interesting. In fact, when I ponder the thought that if I saw this movie knowing it was a fraud, I ask myself, Would it be as good?  I think I might’ve found it boring. So this is a tough one to critique.

As for the acting, pretty good and intense, with Will Patton playing his part a little over-the-top, but good. I’ve always liked Elias Koteas in all the roles that he’s played. As a whole, the cast was spot on and made it believable and I don’t think they needed to add the video footage to make this a truly frightening alien abduction flick.

So what is my final “bit” on The Fourth Kind? Well, as I’d said, the acting is great, the story interesting—but confusing at times, the cast was astral and perfect, so I can’t complain there. Where I can complain is the fact I was duped by the director and star, feeding me that line in the beginning and telling me the footage was real. But at the same time, I was scared when I heard the alien voices and saw what they caused the people’s bodies to do under hypnosis. I guess I might watch the film on DVD when it’s released and see if I’ll like it then. Otherwise, view at your own risk.

Saw VI and Paranormal Activity

Yet again, I’m happy to announce a pair of films I’ve had the pleasure to view within a few days of each other. Rather than choosing one or the other, I decided that I’ll just write a piece about both.

The two films I had seen this week were Saw VI and Paranormal Activity. Instead of going out to see the movies right when they came out, I waited a few days to do so. The main reason was because I went to Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios over the weekend and I was pretty exhausted after getting back from the trip. I needed a day, Sunday, to recuperate and then went to the movie theater on Monday to see Saw VI. As I walked in, however, I noticed that they had a marquee for Paranormal Activity. I was surprised because I knew the film was in limited release throughout the country and only bigger cities had the movie available. Being that I live in Cowtown USA, I didn’t think it would’ve been released here. But there was the title, standing out in glorious lettering on the display above the entryway, so I silently debated what I should see that day. After a few seconds, I went with Saw VI and promised myself I’d come back for Paranormal Activity later that week.

So, in the order I’d watched the films, I’ll review them. Without further ado, here they are.

As I sat and waited for Saw VI to begin, I couldn’t help but think of the last film and began to think that this film may turn out the same way. Hopefully whoever’s reading this is all caught up with the prior films and know what I’m talking about as I go through this. See, the film deals with characters of the last few films, flashing back and sometimes just bringing back people from the prior movie or the one before last.

I know...sounds confusing, right?

Anyway, this sequel takes place right after the last, where Agent Strahm was duped by Detective Hoffman and killed. See, we find out in the last two movies that Hoffman is basically taking Jigsaw’s place and creating some of the “games” that are causing people to be killed. Strahm was right on his tail and nearly had him, but like I’d said, he died.

Anyway, this film brings in an insurance company that turned down a claim for John Kramer (Jigsaw) to help him with his cancer as we see in flashbacks. The lead man of the company, William, is the one chosen to play the new game and goes through quite a bit with choosing some people, individuals associated to him through the insurance company, to live or die. Meanwhile, Hoffman is making sure the FBI is not closing in on him while he’s overseeing the game.

Jill, John’s wife, is brought into the story again and we get to find out what was in the box that was left to her in the previous film. I’d go further into that, but I don’t want to spoil anything.

I’ve got to say that this entry was a little better and less confusing than the last film, but not as good as the first three. I don’t know where the filmmakers are going with this story as a whole, but it seems as if they’re going to great lengths to some climactic conclusion. Really, I don’t care because, overall, the franchise is very entertaining and thrilling, although constantly criticized for this or that. But the traps are what really sell the films because they’re so sadistic yet ingenious in every entry.

As long as they keep their promise by releasing a sequel every year near Halloween, I’ll be there in the seat with my bag of popcorn and Milk Duds.

So, two days later, I swing back to the movie house for the second of my double feature review, Paranormal Activity.

Paranormal Activity was a little weird when it began. See, the normalcy of movie-going is sitting down after gathering your movie paraphernalia, such as popcorn and drinks, and watching the previews before the movie starts. The previews went on as always and suddenly there is this text on the screen about the two characters in the film, Katie and Micah, with some thanks to the San Diego Police Department or something to that effect. There was no “Paramount Pictures Presents,” nor were there the title words, "Paranormal Activity," on the screen to announce that this was the main attraction beginning, just the text that I’d mentioned and that was it.

As many know, the film was shot documentary style, à la Blair Witch Project, as if it were a real life video that this couple decided to film. To some (like myself), this may seem like a tired trend already, but for others, I guess it worked. However tired or old it may have seemed to me, it didn’t take anything away from the film.

With only about four characters in the movie, it was easy to follow and get some good character study pretty quickly. Right away, we find out that Katie and Micah are concerned about some disturbances that have been going on in their house. Between the two, we get the sense that Katie is a little scared about all this and takes the situation very seriously, not wanting Micah to film at times and feeling they need assistance from outside experts. Micah, on the other hand, kind of smirks a bit and laughs things off as he constantly films everything he can, sometimes trying to antagonize whatever demon or spirit is in the house.

As classic horror movies go, Paranormal Activity uses the tried and true formula of giving the audience only little scares at first, slowly building up more and more until the film comes to a big climax. Because what Micah documents at first may be something that could be easily explained as house creaking or kids from next door pulling pranks. But as the sounds and hijinks become greater, the scarier and spookier the situation becomes. A nice touch the filmmakers decided on was showing some of the goings-on in sped up footage and when you see these images, it really adds in helping the audience to get creeped out and making the circumstances more intense.

While Paranormal Activity goes on to show us a lot more than what Blair Witch gave us, it’s still the things we don’t see on screen that scare us the most.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Saw VI and Paranormal Activity?

Saw VI definitely cleared up some questions you may have had from the previous film, but you’d probably do well to watch all prior five films before going in to see this one. It really didn’t feature too many scares, but let’s face it, it’s the devious and brutal traps that we watch these films for, right? I think it might’ve been a mistake to kill Jigsaw off earlier (in part 3, was it?), because how can they continue to keep him devising traps from beyond the grave? As a big fan of the Saw franchise, I may be a little biased, but I really love every entry they’ve released to date.

Paranormal Activity, on the other hand, was a scary film, especially if you put yourself in the characters’ places. Almost everybody has been in that spot where they hear bumps in the night or unexplained movement of items, either by witnessing it or seeing the aftermath of it later. Keeping the cast down to a minimum was brilliant and the story, although not much to it, was good. The acting was believable and the two main players were very likable. Comparing it to Blair Witch Project is fair and I’d say that Paranormal Activity was a bit better and scarier.

Trick 'r Treat

The problem with horror movies these days is that it lacks the mystery and unanswered questions that the movies of yesteryear had. Like, nobody knew why Jason Voorhees kept on coming back no matter how many times you’d stab him or whack him and there was never an answer as to why Michael Myers could never be killed. Nowadays, the moviemakers insist in having a reasoning or an explanation as to why things are happening and when that is placed in the movie, it loses something. It actually loses the fear it provokes when the happenings are simply explained away in some back story. Alfred Hitchcock said it best when he filmed the classic movie, The Birds, citing that leaving the movie open-ended like he did made it more frightening, but if he included an explanation to the birds’ attacks on people, it would fall into the realm of science fiction.

So, with that said, Trick ‘r Treat—directed by Michael Dougherty and produced by Bryan Singer—is definitely a gem of a film that features the supernatural and doesn’t explain it away with some rationale.

Another great thing about this film is that it’s an anthology, meaning that it’s not just one big story, but several stories rolled into one movie. Like Creepshow or Tales From the Crypt, there’s around four or five different tales woven into the film. And unlike those previously mentioned films, the stories in Trick ‘r Treat are interlaced nicely and kind of take a Quentin Tarantino approach to it as the stories are not exactly in chronological order.

This type of horror film has been sadly lacking in Hollywood and unfortunately Trick ‘r Treat really didn’t get its fair share in theaters. In fact, the movie was made and finished in early 2008, only getting limited release during a special horror movie fest and a short run within the Los Angeles area. Even though many reviewers praised the film, Warner Bros. saw fit not to release it nationwide, but instead chose to shelf it for nearly a year. I was one of the many who didn’t get to see this film in the theaters and saw it on DVD last night.

The one thing that kept flashing through my mind as I watched Trick ‘r Treat was how much better it was than Creepshow III. Then again...a lot of movies were better than Creepshow III. Not only did I think that, but I just couldn’t believe that this film wasn’t distributed to theaters to make WB a lot of money, because this film is what Halloween really is all about. So many horror films of late just revolve around what teenagers are boringly doing and includes way too much emphasis on their ways of life. Most of the time, if I can sit through one of these teeny-bopper movies, these films seem like a teenage reality series like The Hills or some boring crap like that.

Anyway, back to Trick ‘r Treat and how the film went.

It starts off really nice, with the feel of autumn, capturing a small town atmosphere during Halloween. A couple returns from the community’s Halloween festivities and we get the first warning about Halloween: Don’t put out the jack o’lantern’s light until Halloween is over. Of course, the woman does—ignoring her husband’s half-hearted warning—and bad things happen. This, my friends, is the introduction of what’s in store for you throughout this film.

We have Principal Wilkins (played by Spider-Man 2’s Dylan Baker) in the first story, showing his terrible secret that he can’t deny; a group of teenage girls head out to a party deep in the woods, with one of them deciding to walk from town all the way to party in the dark; a group of four children go through great lengths to perform a cruel prank on the girl down the street who’s a little different; and finally, the cranky old man (played by Brian Cox), who doesn’t enjoy Halloween and refuses to give out candy to the trick ‘r treaters, is taught a frightening lesson.

Man! This film is so reminiscent of the horror films of the 80s and it feels almost nostalgic to watch it. Bryan Singer and Michael Dougherty really did something right with this film and it’s sad that the film was shelved as payment for all their hard work.

Trick ‘r Treat is really a satisfying experience and is worth more than just renting for one night of viewing…it’s worth owning to watch again and again. Because, as soon as I finished watching this movie, I went online and purchased the Blu-Ray.

My final “bit” on Trick ‘r Treat? Although the film is not jump-out-of-your-seat scary, it’s still a fun and amusing ride. It’s not drenched in gore and violence, but instead, thrills you and leaves you with the right feel of Halloween. In a weird way, it brings you back to your childhood to remember how it was to go out and collect candy from your neighbors, all the while wondering what was out there in the dark. Halloween is only one day in the year, but I always start celebrating it at the beginning of October. Trick ’r Treat gives me yet another tool in making the scary season last. Watch this one! You won’t regret it!

Los Cronocrímenes

Not too long ago, I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts, Horror Etc, and one of the hosts, Kingstown Ted, went over a movie he had just seen called Los cronocrímenes—or, the English name for it, Timecrimes. I was intrigued by how much he liked the movie and even further fascinated by the story. Right away, I went online to my Netflix account, looked up the movie and placed it in my movie queue.

Reading about the movie and plot on imdb.com, I had taken note that none of the names of the cast were ones I had ever heard of. Even the name of the director wasn’t familiar to me. What clicked was that the movie was categorized as a foreign film and after reading more into it, I discovered it was a Spanish movie.

In the past, I’ve turned my back on foreign films and always hated having to read subtitles. But not too long ago a film class I took in college really taught me to embrace some of these foreign films and that’s what I’m trying to do more and more. Because if anything foreign films have taught me is that these movies are quickly surpassing the movies that are being made in Hollywood. Let’s face it, all American films, as of late, are nothing but rehashed remakes with no new ideas whatsoever.

Los cronocrímenes is a perfect example of original story telling.

I went into it, thinking it was a horror movie, because when you look at the DVD artwork, it seems that it will be. The picture on the cover shows a masked character carrying a pair of scissors and he looks very creepy. So I was encouraged to watch this just by looking at that.

It opens with Héctor coming home to his wife, Clara, at their vacation house that they’re working on remodeling. Clara is working on her garden so Héctor goes upstairs for a nap. He doesn’t get to sleep because he receives a mysterious phone call with a little breathing on the phone, then hanging up. He calls it back with *69 or whatever they use in Spain to do that, but only reaches an answering machine.

A little while later, Héctor notices something in the distant field and goes to retrieve a pair of binoculars. He uses them to look out there and sees something red in a bush or something. Héctor becomes interested and goes downstairs to his yard and positions a lawn chair to sit and study the area further. He then notices a young woman looking mysterious with her face hidden by her hair. She slowly takes her shirt off, revealing her breasts and just stands there. Héctor’s wife interrupts him and he lowers his binoculars as she mentions she’s going into town for a while. He gives the keys to the car and she leaves. When he returns his sights to the area the girl was, she’s nowhere to be found.

Héctor decides to walk over to the area to have a look around, walking a hundred yards or so away from his house and into the field to where he saw the girl. He makes it to the clearing that she was at and finds her clothes. Stepping further in, he sees her body lying against a rock, seemingly dead or unconscious—he doesn’t know which. Apprehensively, he approaches her and sees that she is, in fact, breathing. Suddenly, we see an arm raise that is holding a pair of scissors, and it lashes down, stabbing Héctor in the arm. Startled and confused, he runs away and the chase begins.

From then on, we go on a great mind-fuck of a ride with Héctor and the confusing dilemmas he faces. It seems to start off as a horror movie, and then suddenly we’re thrown into a science fiction type of story. Explanations are unraveled that are evident at first, then confusing, then straight right back to the obvious...but keeps you watching all the way through.

I have to say that this story was very intelligently written and is one of the best foreign films I’ve seen in the sci-fi/horror genre. It used to be that America had the best movies, but that time has come to an end. If Hollywood keeps on shitting out these remakes like they’ve been doing for the last few years, American film is going to end up digging their own celluloid grave by the end of the decade. It’s a little novel to see what these remakes will look like, but all-in-all, the American audience wants to see something original in these popular genres.

So what is my final “bit” on Los cronocrímenes?

Captivating from start to finish with pretty good acting, yet it was a simple story that didn’t need much in the special effects department. A few nice set pieces were all it took to make the science fiction portions believable and the great story just nailed it as an enthralling movie. I can’t say enough about this film…it was a nice treat for me to see something original that didn’t have teeny-boppers gum up the dialogue with the latest lingo and popular styles. It was a straight to the point movie.

You need to see it!

The Prowler

I watched this little gem a few days ago after remembering that it made that “100 Scariest Moments” show on TV not too long ago. Another reason I wanted to view this flick was because the special effects were done by the master himself, Tom Savini.

Mr. Savini has worked on a lot of classics, both behind the camera and in front of the camera—sometimes both.

On George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, Tom Savini created and supervised the creation of all the gore effects and makeup of the zombies. He’s also included in the film as a character—one of the bikers that come into the mall. As most of you know, Mr. Savini did the makeup and gore effects for Friday the 13TH and Friday the 13TH: The Final Chapter. He’s also directed the remake of Night of the Living Dead in 1990 ad has had bit parts in Tarantino films and the remake of Dawn of the Dead.

Anyway, I’d always heard of The Prowler and wanted to see it just for Mr. Savini’s showcased effects.

So, about a year ago I looked up the film on the Netflix web site and to my surprise, the film showed up on the non-released column of the queue. It stayed there for almost a year—I don’t know why. But like I said, a few days ago it showed up in the mail and I waited until dark to get the full effect of the film. Basically, I tried to get into the great 1980s horror film mood.

I was impressed with it.

A few scenes were kind of cheesy, especially the dance hall scenes complete with an early ‘80s rock band playing some songs that I’ve never heard of before.

The killer’s garb was pretty original and memorable, the heroine was your typical 1980s horror movie female protagonist as she followed the rules to survive a horror movie ordeal (being a virgin and no sex or drugs), the girls were your average slutty girls that took their clothes off easily, you had the strange guy that worked at the local store, the quiet old man that lives across from the college dorm (for girls)…and just the feel of the community is your typical scenic ‘80s town.

Anyhoot, the story starts with scenes of our boys in the military coming back from overseas during World War II, complete with a radio announcer explaining everything. We then see a letter that was written to someone in the military from a girl that’s basically breaking up with the guy.

The film then cuts to the graduation dance of 1945 and we see a lot of GI’s with their girls, attending the festivities. One such couple breaks off and goes to a nearby makeout point only to be killed by a military clothed individual, using a long knife. We can’t see this guy’s face because he wears some chemical warfare mask that hides his face…which makes this horror movie killer one of the coolest looking ones during that time. Remember, this film was made before Friday the 13TH Part 2 so Jason Voorhees wasn’t even running around with his potato sack yet.

Well, the movie then fades to present day (circa 1980) and we see that the college dance hall is getting decorated for that year’s graduation dance. Seems that the locals think it’s a bad idea seeing that it’s the first time they’ve had a graduation dance since the murders in 1945.

As luck turns out, there was a robbery the next town over that ended up with someone getting butchered and the local sheriff and young deputy are making sure they keep a lookout for this maniac on the loose. As an added bonus, this is the day that the sheriff goes on his weekend fishing trip and he has to leave the deputy in charge of the small town.

Lo and behold, the killer does show up and commits a few murders in stunning fashion, thanks to the wizardry of the aforementioned Tom Savini. The effects still hold up and look pretty real and gruesome to this day.

Like I said, it’s an entertaining 1980s horror film and it’s a pretty good story with above average acting for its ilk. The film was actually directed by Joseph Zito who had directed Friday the 13TH: The Final Chapter just a mere 4 years later. And the music score is pretty similar to Harry Manfredini’s score of Friday the 13TH, but it’s composed by a different music writer.

So back to the film…

Most people can guess who the killer is before he’s revealed and it’s because of all the movies that followed this film way back when, so we became accustomed to the formula that these films follow. Still, the flick is a good time.

My final “bit” on The Prowler? If you want to relive a little 1980s nostalgia and be reminded of how entertaining the horror films of that time were, I’d pick this baby up at the local Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, Red Box or Netflix and pop it in. If not…you’re loss.